Three Anti-Gay Congressman Are Secretly Gay

[US News and World Report] Michael Rogers, a blogger who gained fame in the early 2000s by revealing the sexual orientation of prominent politicians, has largely been dormant since President Barack Obama took office. But Rogers tells U.S. News he’s gathering evidence for what could be another big revelation.

Rogers sees himself as a reporter focused on political hypocrisy, and to establish his credibility he points to a track record of accuracy and the fact that he’s never been sued.

“There’s a big difference between outing and reporting. I’m a reporter, I report on hypocrisy,” Rogers told U.S. News. “If I have one case that’s off, I’m out of the business, [but] I will never be sued for what I do because I’m right.”

The blogger said he currently knows of three “anti-gay” members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are themselves gay. Rogers refused to say when he might disclose information on these members or what might provoke such a revelation, maintaining that as a journalist he holds some cards close to the vest.

But Rogers said he’s about to get his hands on concrete evidence that one “anti-gay” member of the House of Representatives engages in gay sex. “Oh, it’s going to happen because it has been happening for a long time,” he said.

Rogers’ BlogActive website, launched in 2004, hasn’t been updated since August 2012.

“There’s no real particular reason” for the lull, he said. “Like anybody who starts a volunteer effort, eight years is a long time … there’s no outing job at a paper where someone’s going to pay you.”

He started the blog when he “saw a need during the Bush administration.”

“George Bush was a homophobic, anti-gay, horrible person,” Rogers said. “Certainty there’s less of a need without a homophobic president.”

The political tide has changed significantly since Bush pushed for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, he noted.

“What Obama has been able to do is take an issue that Republicans used as a wedge for Democrats and make it into a wedge for Republicans,” he said.

Nonetheless, there’s a still a need to expose “anti-gay” politicians who are themselves gay, Rogers said, even if the Supreme Court decides to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

“The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is infinitely more important for me as an activist than marriage,” he said. That legislation has lingered in Congress for years and is unlikely to pass the current Republican-led House.

The blogger’s most high-profile triumphs include the 2004 revelation that then Rep. Ed Schrock, R-Va., was leaving voicemails on a gay hook-up service, prompting the two-term congressman to retire. In October 2006 he wrote that three men informed him they had sex with then Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in bathrooms at Union Station. Before making his allegations against Craig public, two of his three sources signed affidavits saying they would come forward if Rogers was taken to court.

In August 2007 the political and comedic worlds went wild with news that Craig had quietly pleaded guilty to charges for allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a Minnesota airport’s restroom. Rogers said he was “vindicated 500 percent” after Craig’s arrest was made public.

Oh hesh, don’t fall for the lies and propaganda from the dem controlled and leftist controlled media. It is simply not a fact or even a probability that they are more likely “all Republicans”. Being a lemming is exactly what they want you to become .

red – it is more than just rumours. Read Larry Sinclair’s book. He apparently fled to hide in Canada while writing his book , and then was mysteriously imprisoned there falsely, for some time. I dont know if he still is or his whereabouts recently.

well you know, jacksonian, I find Rogers’s hypocrisy i this article to be glaring. After all, Obama was adamantly anti-gay marriage during his political campaign and during his early years in office. Perhaps that was his genuine belief system or perhaps not. but then he flipflopped and came out in support of gay marriage. So perhaps that was his genuine belief system all along making him a blatant, horrible liar who lied to all of America merely for political expediency to get himself elected, or perhaps he is now lying for political expediency to gain more political power, legacy and dem controls in place. After all, that cakeknife cuts both ways.

OK first as a gay man I am all for outing. I think the view that its a no no is very 1970s when people could lose their jobs or worse. There was just a code that you never talked about what went down in the gayborhood. I am all for outing and wish there was more of it. Its simply not OK to be closeted and hurts all gays. That said Mike used to do this all the time back in the day. Make claims and then never follow thru. Tease and then never reveal.

AS gay man myself we should out everyone. I hate it when people use fame/money/power to hide the truth when the truth is there is nothing to be ashamed of! If people hate you because your gay that is their problem not yours. By hiding your giving the haters power,!

Would you want to be outed against your will? I think it should be up to the individual to decide when/if he/she comes out. Wouldn’t a gay or lesbian person want to tell family and close friends first? Isn’t that the kindest thing to do?

I am confused by this. So politicians are not everyday men and women? And we shouldn’t be a bit more sensitive to the ramifications in their life? ……
……And being in the public eye is no reason or justification to not protect them their ramifications/life since I would guess you might argue for celebrities privacy while destroying the lives of politicians and those in their life.

Le yawn. All politicos are ensured to have dirt on them somewhere for something… its how compliance is ensured when they might want to say, go against their handlers. Or to distract the masses who might go wondering as to where the financial strings are really being pulled in their country. Hypocrisy, yeah, let me look in your closet, Mr. Rogers.

Congress is made up of both the Senate and the House. And the senator from South Carolina is a gentleman bachelor who has never married but likes to talk a great deal about who should, and should not, be able to do so. Or, as is the most recent example of his hypocrisy, who should be able to be included in the immigration bill (straight folks!) and who should not (everyone else!).

Can we please stop pretending both parties are equal in their hatred of gays, minorities or the poor?

They’re not. Claiming that they are, however — in opposition to overwhelming evidence — does not make one politically fair or neutral: it only reveals a person to be rabidly partisan, delusional or ignorant. And all too often it’s all three.

Get over yourself, nolabell, it’s obvious with your statements you’re trying to shame people. Sound like a Republican to me. OOPs, did I say that?! Everyone is entitled to THEIR opinion and obviously these are THEIRS. I’m sure your list is filled with Dems. Quit why you’re ahead with goading. It won’t get your anywhere.

For the record my list contains half a dozen GOP members, because they are @sshat bigots but hey, that’s MY opinion. =). Dems are not as hypocritical as Pubes er Republicans but there are some out there, but not as many as within the GOP.

Skagen-you sound adamant with no evidence but leftist rants to support the argument I suppose? my point here has been and continues to be that hypocrisy and bigotry exists on both sides , and the left’s raging vitriol against those who think differently, is a proportional example. Your name calling to make it personal is another failed talking point from the leftist paradigm.
Monkey utter-no shame from my end or in the sentence used. But it is interesting that you choose to perceive only that vs the content. It is frustrating to hear your posit without any proof and yet you putdown anyone else who as an opinion different from yours. That is the point of the content. I heard your opinion ( name calling) but then you support your argument with a declaration as if fact, when it is still only an opinion, or perhaps I am reading it incorrectly.

I’m someone who votes Republican or at least with a conservative bent. These politicans who are gay and Republican SHOULD be outed. For no other reason that to remove the possiblity that they can be blackmailed by anyone who has an agenda that is contrary to those that they, the people who elected them for.

tiredof whining – sorry if this is a second post but my computer program crashed and so not sure if post went through, but….. the BI cites Rogers alleging that all three congresspersons are in the house.

I know this is about the House, but back when he was in the House- Mark Kirk was one of the names Mike R. used to list. Interestingly enough, Kirk now supports gay marriage. However, with all Kirk has gone through, it’s really hard to be critical of him anymore.

Im with easter on the three. Im okay with outing hyprocitcal politicians only becuase they lying to the ppl. In the case of celebrities no as long as they arent hurting ppl (ie giving out hiv) i dont care as long as they comfortable in their sexuality.

I am confused by this… it is ok for a hollywood celebrity to lie to their fans, and the many people who pay to see their work, but it is not ok for politicians to lie to the people in their district? since when have politicians not lied to the people? and when have hollywood celebrities ever admitted their well known hypocrisies, eg. jim carrey, sean penn, george clooney,etc?

I’ll go with Patrick McHenry (NC-10), Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48), and Aaron Schock (IL-18). I wanted to say Michele Bachmann, it would help explain why her husband comes across as so flamboyant if she herself were gay, but I don’t know about that.

Also considered Mike McIntyre from N.C., even though he is a Democrat he is also one of the “Blue Dogs” who regularly vote against issues like ENDA and marriage equality. After reading the post I initially assumed that the three politicians were all Republicans, but it doesn’t actually say that they all are.

Yikes! There is an ENORMOUS, HUGE, HONKING difference between being gay and being a pedophile. Just because Mr. Bachman is likely gay DOES NOT MEAN he would ever, EVER be sexually attracted to a child.

Gay does not equal pedophile. Ever.

Saying that gay = pedophile is the same as claiming that all straight men sit around fantasizing about molesting young girls. They absolutely do not. If a (seemingly) straight guy lusts after female children, then he’s a pedophile, not straight. If a (seemingly) gay man lusts after male children, he’s not gay, he’s a pedophile.

yeah I noticed that too! and why hasnt any of those here mentioning non-house folks not bringing up Hillary. wonder why rogers hasnt gone after her? after all, is he really reporting as he claims to be or is he just another partisan hack for the dems?

Exactly. And “anti-gay” is pretty extreme and very broad – as in very vocal about it being morally wrong to be gay, and taking specific actions against gay people, period. Being in support of traditional marriage is not by definition “anti-gay.” So I’m not sure we can assume that if someone supports traditional marriage that they are “anti-gay.” (Don’t jump on me folks, just playing devil’s advocate here and being as specific as possible with the language provided to solve the blind).

I don’t think that anyone who is in support of so-called ‘traditional marriage’ is automatically anti-gay. Just like I don’t assume any Christian I know is anti-Jewish. It’s when their actions reach beyond the scope of their homes and families and actively spout drivel trying to restrict the rights and benefits of others that I call them “anti-whatever”.

As for this blind, Lindsay Graham is so obvious. Aaron Schock I honestly don’t have gaydar with. That pink belt and pastel lunch outfit was so hetero metro trying too hard. I know no gay man who would wear that pink belt while trying to be serious.

Lol! You’ll crack me up. The aticle says REPUBLICANS not Dems. Stick to the subject or move on. Talking about the President does not take away from the fact that some of the Repubs are gay but won’t vote for gay rights.

No clue, but I will say this. Just because George Bush didn’t believe in gay marriage, does NOT make him a “horrible person” nor anyone else. He has a right to believe whatever he wants and so do others. Now, if I actually knew of proof that he HATED the gay community, that is a different story.

I agree with you 100%. I am not a republican or a dem and am sick and tired of the left denigrating the right for having religious beliefs and being true to those beliefs, just because they do not care for those beliefs. I bet these same leftists defend vigorously islamic terrorists not being called terrorists just because they hold a different religious belief, yet they refuse to acknowledge that this faith (the ultra fundamentalist orthodox types only) believes in violence and bigotry against all women, non-muslims, jews and christians, and yes, even gays. For the right’s religious members, having the integrity to stand for their beliefs, fight for them and vote for those values in the secular components reflecting their society is their constitutional right in our society and country. Perhaps the haters here might consider what it might be like for them living in a fundamentalist islamic countrythat claims to be secular yet reallly isnt?

I’m not exactly for mixed race marriage, but I would never call for an amendment and laws restricting it. I hope you can see the difference. And I think it is not a matter of ‘hate’, but a total lack of respect and fairness and equality.

I’m fairly certain Rogers’ opinion of Bush is based on a biography that is public knowledge, 2 public campaigns, 8 years as POTUS, responsibility for two catastrophic wars, unprecedented human rights violations and a ranked economy, as opposed to his stance on marriage equality. He’s stating his opinion in an article about homophobia, that doesn’t mean his opinion is based only on Bush’s homophobia.

Based on that post, I am going to guess that you don’t see the hypocrisy in the context that our current president agreed with Bush on the definition of marriage during his campaign and while president to get elected before he switched for political expediency (2 public campaigns, 6 years as POTUS where he has continued the same two catastrophic wars, unprecedented human rights violations( shall we specify a few: drone killing of us citizens without due constitutional process, electoral tampering, drone surveillance of us citizens, communications data gathering on us citizens without warrants, abandoning us soldiers and citizens under attack on the front line of war participants) and a totally ranked economy as opposed to his current stance on gay marriage?

Nolabelle, let me let you in on a little secret. People can change their minds if they want to. You berate Obama for his stance on gay equality but Bush is the man? Really? Obama was brave to come out and say what he said and he should not be punished for doing the right thing.

Tony-knew that “secret”. Thanks though. NO where did I berate Obama on his stance-pls re read my sentences. I did criticise the opinion changes based on political expediency and not genuine belief and the negative consequences that implies for his character and for the American people. Many would argue it wasn’t bravery for him to change his mind. No where has he been punished for it either. Clue-criticizing a president is not punishing him. We all don’t march in locked knee to his lordship. That is our right in this country. If you want to do it in other countries, you might be jailed, your family jailed or worse, executed.

Nolabelle – You claimed in an earlier post that “Perhaps that was his genuine belief system or perhaps not. but then he flipflopped and came out in support of gay marriage. So perhaps that was his genuine belief system all along making him a blatant, horrible liar who lied to all of America merely for political expediency to get himself elected, or perhaps he is now lying for political expediency to gain more political power, legacy and dem controls in place.”

But now you are writing “I did criticise the opinion changes based on political expediency and not genuine belief and the negative consequences that implies for his character and for the American people.”

What it comes down to is that you don’t know (and will never know) the true reason he changed his beliefs regarding gay marriage. So please stop spouting your conspiracy theories and wringing your hands over it.

You also stated “I am not a republican or a dem and am sick and tired of the left denigrating the right for having religious beliefs and being true to those beliefs, just because they do not care for those beliefs.” Gay marriage has everything to do with equality. If you want to hide behind religious beliefs and use them as an excuse for why you don’t believe in equality, fine. But that is exactly what you are doing, whether you want to admit to it or not.

This whole argument separating “hate” from “hateful” is a red herring.

Here, let me translate your argument for you: “I’m not anti-gay, I just support anti-gay legislation.”

The rationale for the argument against gay marriage is in most ways indistinguishable from the argument against mixed-race marriage, or miscegenation. I’ll translate for them, too: “I’m not racist, I just reject the notion of mixed-race marriage.”

If you hold a belief that is racist or homophobic, than yes, you also are racist or homophobic.

George Bush II *is* homophobic, because he supports a homophobic mindset. Whether he “hates” gays I don’t know. I don’t know how any common citizen could.

But the whole brouhaha over who secretly hates whom is a non-issue. What I *do* know for a fact is that Bush II supports legislation that would forever codify in the US constitution the second class status of the homosexual minority. Bush II doesn’t have to hate gays to be hateful to them. No one does.

But that doesn’t make homophobia any more palatable, or the people who agitate against them any less responsible for their beliefs.

Yes, everyone has the right to be homophobic. Just like people have the right to be racist. But at least have the courage to own up to your beliefs, to call a spade a spade. If you want to disallow equal rights to others, stop pretending that you don’t.

There’s a difference between your own beliefs and putting those into law. If George Bush hated black people is one thing, but if he wanted to give them unequal rights due to their race, that’s a different thing. It’s the same with gay marriage. Think it’s wrong or a sin all you want, but don’t put those beliefs into law

I don’t think that a person is a “low information voter” because he or she sees that the majority of politicians who are most vocal when it comes to anti-gay legislation are Republicans. Are you saying that that happens to be a coincidence?

This will not come out. This is clearly a blackmail measure. The man will be paid to keep his trap shut. It’s too valuable to him to really expose it. Will never happen. He will just get rich off it. Which is pretty scummy.

For nearly four years while Harper was opposition leader, Novak, then with the title of executive assistant, lived in a small loft above the detached garage at Stornoway—the opposition leader’s official residence—eating meals with the family and growing close to Harper’s two young children.

This is the detail that has come to define an aide who, by some tellings, knows Harper better than all but the Prime Minister’s wife and mother. “Ray was with him more than anybody else for years and years and years,” says Brodie, who served as Harper’s chief of staff for three years. “They were literally hardly ever apart.”

In addition to living with the Harper family at Stornoway, he oversaw Harper’s tour operations, coordinated with his security detail and served as the Prime Minister’s envoy to the families of the Air India bombing. “Ray will get it done,” says a former member of the PMO. “And he will do so with total discretion.”

When Harper returned to federal politics in 2001 to pursue the Alliance leadership, he tabbed Novak as his assistant.

As principal secretary, Novak travels with the Prime Minister abroad…

♥♥♥
(Pls note no actual broads were used in the entirety of above story).

Michele Bachmann..she and her husband, Marcus, are bearding for one another
Aaron Schock..no brainer..did you see the outfit he wore for a BBQ?
Jim Matheson, Democrat from Utah who opposes gay marriage

I think it could be Henry Cuellar of Texas. There have always been rumors. He’s a D not an R, but our D’s mostly vote against anything gay-friendly. Our R’s do too. By the way, W was the first president to sign a law which provided gay domestic partner benefits in the DC appropriation bill on 12/21/01. He also appointed an openly-gay Ambassador in 2001,with his partner at the ceremony & the press covering it. His guy running the 9/11 fund also paid gay surviving partners where they were registered domestic partners in their home state, so most were treated about the same. Obama’s Dreams of My Father specifically states he is [was] against gay marriage “based on his Christian beliefs” which was the same position as the far right. He’s a mixed bag whose Justice Department filed briefs in opposition to the same-sex lawsuits filed in 2009 to challenge Prop 8. He said such equality would be an undue “burden” on the feds. Also, it was our last D Gov Ann Richards who made gays criminals in 1993 with Section 21.06 of the penal code, not Bushie. He was no prize, but Ann made us criminals after taking our votes & money. All of the D’s in Congress who are still there who VOTED FOR DOMA, are today crowing about its demise. That’s *. Again, most R’s are not pro-gay, but there’s lots of bad D’s. Neither Sen. O, Hillary, Joe Biden, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, et al, did any work to get us an ENDA vote in 2007. But Barney Frank & Paul Ryan voted for it in the House in 2007 & it passed. But Sen Reid sat his gay ass on it. That’s another one, Sen. Queen * Uncle * Reid—sucks the cock??? Anyway, our progress is coming from the US Supreme Court. Now, let’s talk about penis. And remember, we should stick together since we have the deck stacked against us.